Friday, October 30, 2015

FULL TEXT: Berlin, Jan. 30. – Germany’s most prominent
psychiatrists, Prof. Raecke, Dr. Gunderlack and also the famous Prof.
Hirshfield have been called into consultation on a murder case to be tried next
month at Disberg, which is declared by both criminologists and psychiatrists
to be unique in the history of crime. It is strongly reminiscent of the Leopold-Loeb
case [because of the element of homosexuality] and is even more remarkable
because the defendant. Kaethe Hagedorn, is an 18-year-old girl of a good
middle-class family, quiet, pretty and modest, against whom no single witness
has anything ill to say, but who has confessed to the brutal murder of two
children, 6-year-old Katie Gelsleighter and 9-year-old Freidrich Schaefer.

The murder, which occurred in the woods behind the Duisberg
Cemetery, appears to have been committed in an irresponsible frenzy, and the
girl herself was unable to recall the details until, during her imprisonment,
she cut her own finger, and at the sight of a drop of blood made a full
confession. The story reminiscent of the Salome of Oscar Wilde, for Kaethe
Hagedorn seems to have been a naive child, driven by fearful unconscious
impulses.

Kaethe worked in her father’s grocery store, and was
described by the neighbors as modest, exceptionally sensitive to music, and
with a passion for Chopin. She seems to have been awakened to a craze for
sensation through a woman circus acrobat, much older than herself, with whom
she some time ago began a friendship which is believed to have been her
undoing.

Her flapper enthusiasm was not taken seriously, however, by
her parents or friends. Children adored her, particularly the two unfortunate
little ones, who belonged to neighbors.

Although the murder was committed at noon, Kaethe lived
calmly and was not suspected during twenty-four hours of lamentations. However,
the next day she fled from the city, and this led to her pursuit and capture.

The girl is declared to be the first woman known to have
committed murder from sheer urge of the sensation. [Note: This claim is not
accurate, of course. Numerous other earlier cases were known and documented,
yet overlooked. - RStE] The case is awakening interest among all the students
of abnormal psychology, as no other motive can be discovered.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

This famous brief text should always be handy, so I’ve posted it here. It
is useful when arguing against those who use the simpleminded, and utterly often
confusing, left-right model and who have no awareness that the founders of the early-20th
century political parties called “right” (Mussolini’s Fascists, Hitler’s
National Socialist Workers Party) were in reality merely factions of socialism
who competed with other factions of socialism and won. Yet the roots remained
the roots.

***

HITLERITE RIOT IN BERLIN

Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and
Lenin

New York Times, November 28, 1925,
p.4.

BERLIN. Nov. 27. – The National Socialist-Labor Party, of
which Adolf Hitler is patron and father, persists in believing Lenin and
Hitler can be compared or contrasted in a party meeting. Two weeks ago an
attempted discussion of this subject led to one death, sixty injuries and
$5,000 damages to beer glasses, tables, chairs, windows and chandeliers in
Chemnitz. Last night, Dr. Göbells tried the experiment in Berlin and only
police intervention prevented a repetition of the Chemnitz affair.

On the speaker’s assertion that Lenin was the greatest man,
second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler
faith was very slight, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses. When
this sort of ammunition was exhausted a free fight in which fists and knives
played important roles was indulged in. Later a gang marched to the offices
of the socialist paper Vorwärts and smashed plate-glass windows. Police made
nineteen arrests.

***

German socialists were not keen on what they saw as a threat
from Bolshevism that culminated in the Holodomar, which many blamed on those
Cheka leaders (such as the sociopath serial killer Cheka leader as Rozalia Zemliachka) who were ethnically Askenazy and who were fierce persecutors of Christian
Russians and Ukranians. Germans wanted a “better” collectivist state, a “better”
version of authoritarian socialism, one that that was their own. And they got
one, with a different scapegoat class, and with a national socialist “Holocaust”
instead of an international socialist “Holodomor.”

Saturday, October 17, 2015

FULL TEXT: A sad case of homicidal mania occurred on
April 4 at Hoxton, resulting in the murder of her daughter, a little girl, the
wounding of her husband, and an attempt of the murderess to commit suicide. The
woman’s nameis Newton, one is forty-two years of
age, the wife of a respectable shoemaker, carrying on business at 43,
Brunswick-place, and the mother of a large family. Her mind appears to have
been affected by grief with tho loss of her children, of whom the fifth, an infant,
died about a year since.

Her condition appears to have been
well known to the medical man who has been in the habit of attending her, but
he did not think it a case calling for physical restraint. So lately as Good
Friday evening there was nothing unusual in the woman’s manner, and after a
walk with her husband the pair partook of supper and retired to bed about eight
o’clock on Saturday morning she rose according to custom, and went down to the
ground floor to light a fire and prepare breakfast for the family.

Her son, a boy of eleven, had risen,
and was taking down the shutters of the shop, when his mother reproached him
for not having done so before, and threatened to murder him. Her wildness of
manner excited the boy’s apprehension, and when she shortly after rushed
through the shop at him with a carving-knife in her hand, and her intention
plainly indicated in her distorted features, he fled for his life, she did not
pursue him far, but rushed upstairs to a room occupied by her brother, whom,
with menacing gestures, she threatened to murder. A brief struggle ensued
between them;but her strength was
so great that he was unable to secure her, and, breaking away, she ran into
another room, where two of her daughters had been sleeping. The elder girl had
risen and gone downstairs, an act which no doubt saved her life but a younger
child Jane, four and a half years of age, was left still asleep.

The unhappy woman immediately cut the
poor little creature’s throat, almost severing the head from the body. Going
again downstairs she was followed by her husband, who had become alarmed by the
noise of the struggle between the woman and her brother, and by her frantic
rushing about. Directly the murderess saw her husband she flew at him, wounding him in the arm.
Only then realising his wife’s condition he closed with her, and tried to obtain
possession of the knife.

A struggle ensued, but he found
himself unable to cope with the unhappy woman, who, after inflicting several ofother wounds on his hands and arms,
broke away, and, her paroxysm taking a fresh direction, she cut her own throat,
and fell to the ground insensible. The cries of “Murder” while this horrible
scene was being enacted reached the ears of Police-constable Perritt, 312 N,
who was on duty near, and be ran to the house, but too late to prevent
mischief. He at once sent for Inspector Ramsay, of his division, who, seeing
the condition of the wretched woman, sent her off at once to St Bartholomew’s.

The woman has hitherto borne the character
[of] a kind and affectionate mother, but out of a family of eight children, she
lost five within a comparatively brief period, and her grief is known to have
affected her mind, though no one of her friends ever anticipated it would show
itself in so terrible a form. Brunswick-place, where the occurrence took place,
is the scene of unusual excitement.

Crowds of persons assemble in front
of the house, and strange rumours are current as to the cause of the affair.
That the unhappy woman hadbeen in a
desponding condition for some time is asserted by the husband and we understand
that the subject of her removal from the house, was seriously discussed on
Friday night among the members of the family. On her arrival at St
Bartholomew’s Hospital she was in a very excited state, and it has been found
necessary to place her under restraint ever since.

Mr Jepson, the house surgeon, stated
last night that the wounds inflicted on herself were merely superficial, none
of the important arteries having been severed and, although in a very
desponding state, it was thought that, two of three day of quietness
might lead to a great improvement. She has not alluded to the melancholy affair
— all that can be elicited, from her, in reply to questions put, being simply
“Yea” and “No.” The injury to the husband, who was removed, to the same
institution as his wife to have his wounds dressed, was very slight.

– In the death certificates, the cause of the Toohey child’s
death was given as mastoiditis and that of the Winters baby as congenital heart
disease.

– On several occasions, a nurse and former employe of the
“farm” said Mrs. Geisen-Volk beat children whose parents were behind in the
payments for their care.

– Mrs. Geisen-Volk is held in $35,000 ball, charged with
having attempted to substitute another baby for Angerer’s missing son.

– Charges that Mrs. Helen A. Geisen-Volk augmented the
profits from her “baby farm” by selling cemetery plots to the mothers of
infants who died while under her care, are being investigated today by
Assistant District Attorney William P. Ryan.

– A report that the Angerer baby had died under a fictitious
name at Metropolitan Hospital late last January has been recovered by the
assistant district attorney.

– health records disclosed that 44 babies had died in them
since January 1, 1918. (May 15, 1925).

***

F. QUOTATIONS of
G-V:

Mrs. Jacob Bleische, mother of Eleanor: “I made a terrible
row, and Mrs. Geisen-Volk said, ‘It’s all over now; the baby is dead. Keep
quiet and I will give you money.’ I told her no money would buy my baby.”
[Brooklyn Daily Eagle (N.Y.), May 10, 1925, p. 1]

“Babies and animals should be disciplined all the same. When
they become unruly, I hold them under water or push them in closets or bang
them. I’ve trained children for 20 years that way.” [Oreonta Daily Star (N.
Y.), May 27, 1925, p. 1]

***

G. PHOTOS:
figures in the case whose photographs have been published in newspapers.

FULL TEXT: The tiny, emaciated body of the twenty-second
baby to die within a year under the care of Mrs. Helen Geisen-Volk in her
infantorium at 235 East Eighty-sixth Street lay in the morgue last night
awaiting an autopsy. The unofficial verdict was “acute malnutrition.”

The child, whose death followed almost immediately after the
disclosure of conditions of neglect and ignorance described by medical men as
“appalling,” was Robert Snyder, the son of Mrs. Helen Snyder, of 10 West
Ninety-Sixth street. He was taken to the Metropolitan Hospital by the first
physician called in on the previous day after a complaint had been entered
against Mrs. Geisen-Volk. He died early yesterday morning.

~ 500 Women Fill Street ~

Distracted mothers besieged the infantorium yesterday, and
in the street a milling crowd of 500 women chattered menacingly with
horror-stricken eyes on the conventional brownstone front front of the house
whose tragic hidden history has come to light.

Six fresh complaints have been received by Assistant
District Attorney William P. Ryan, of the Homicide Bureau. The body of a child
known as “Faith Bell,” reported to be the daughter of a harpist, will be
exhumed, and possibly others. There is ground for belief on part of the
official investigators that Faith may be a substitute baby, as William Angerer,
of 536 East 147th Street, claims the child given him to be. It was his
complaint that forced the investigation of the baby farm.

~ Mrs. Geisen-Volk Identifies Babies ~

Mrs. Geisen-Volk, a slender, hard-eyed woman, who served
with the German Red Cross during the war and was permanently injured in the
spine, was taken to her “farm” yesterday afternoon from Jefferson Market jail,
where she is being held under $35,000 bail on a charge of child substitution,
pending a hearing in Harlem Court this morning. She was accompanied by Mr.
Ryan, Dr. Schulz, Detective Edward Winkleman, of the Homicide Squad; Miss Mabel
Sprague, a probation officer, and two stenographers.

The work of identification of helpless babies, ill and
crying, was the purpose of the visit. While she fumbled and shook in pulling
back the blue and pink coverlets and pronouncing the children’s names with the
aid of a card index, a tall woman strode in with a baby in her arms. She was
Mrs. Margaret Cooper, a widow, living at 226 East Eighty-third Street and
earning $32 a week downtown as a secretary.

~ Returns With Sick Child~

She had come for Patricia, a two-year old, earlier in the
day.this was a return visit. For several minutes she watched Mrs. Geisen-Volk.
She heard the babies’ names pronounced and saw the physicians take adhesive
tale with the Christian name inscribed on it and fasten it to the children’s
garments.

Bitterly she watched, hugging her baby girl. She had been in
two physicians since recovering Patricia. They had found that her child’s mouth
was infected (Four of the children in all were found to be in this condition)
and that she was undernourished and seriously under weight. She had been paying
$8 a week for the child while she went to work, and extras for clinical
expenses.

“You murderer!” she suddenly shouted at the pale German
woman. “Look at my child. You have killed her! I have been to two doctors and
both told me she was six pounds under weight. She is in a terrible condition. A
woman like you should be electrocuted!”

~ Starts Commotion ~

Immediately there was a hubbub in the basement kitchen,
where the children were being examined and identified. She was assured that
competent physicians were present who would look at her baby.

“None of your lies!” she snapped. “I know. You cannot
explain to me. I know you.”

In a flash her tall, strong form swung threateningly over
Mrs.Geisen-Volk, who shrank back, clutching her heart. Vincent Pisarro, agent
of the Society for the Prevention of the Cruelty of Children, and detective
caught Mrs. Cooper, but she threw them off and made another lunge at the
shrinking object of her wrath.

“You don’t know what you’re talking about!” Mrs. Geisen-Volk
yelled back at her. “I wouldn’t have accepted your child if I had seen her.
She’s only been here since Friday.”

~ Mrs. Geisen-Volk Faints ~

“A woman like you ought to be strung up,” persisted Mrs.
Cooper, who by now had been subdued by four men and was being rapidly backed
out of the kitchen. As she went the brown-clad figure of her victim suddenly
stiffened and the head of the infantorium slipped to the floor in a dead
faint.

Prior to their examination of the children an ambulance had
been summoned from Bellevue and two physicians assisted in the routine that
followed. The only attendants at the infantorium were Mrs. Esther Garrett and
Mrs. Mazie Lorzie. The babies were brought down to the kitchen wrapped in blue,
pink and white blankets, and as each appeared Mrs. Geisen-Volk consulted the
card index, after peeping under the coverings.

The physicians tagged each child and one mother arrived on
the scene just as her baby had been labeled – a fat, blond infant, with rosy
cheeks, whom she clutched thankfully, kissed and bore away. Three others who
had been clamoring for their children were given babies and left hurriedly.

Seven of the little ones were taken to Bellevue to await
claimants. Mrs. Geisen-Volk could give no particulars about some of them except
their names. The best she could could do on the list of those going to Bellevue
was:

Later in the eveningAngerer went with his attorney to Bellevue, hoping to find the child for
whom he claims another was substituted. He failed to identify any of the seven
infants as his. His wife, who has had a nervous break-down, comes out of the
hospital to-morrow and he fears the effect on her of not finding her own baby.
Mrs. Geisen-Volk is sure, however, that the father is at fault and that as soon
as Mrs. Angerer sees the little boy she returned to him, she will recognize him
as hers.

A Health Department inspector who examined the “farm” and
the children found that four infants and infected mouths. He said he would
recommend that Mrs. Geisen-Volk’s license be revoked. She had nineteen child in
the infantorium, while her license only allowed seven. The nurses were said to
be without training or experience.

~ No Sterilization Equipment. ~

Dr. Schultze said that he and Mr. Ryan failed to find any
equipment for the sterilization of feeding utensils or the pasteurization of
milk. There was no inspection of the quality of the food and milk bottle
nipples were freely mixed [soc]. Externally the house is very clean, with
painted furniture and a roomy back yard for the children. It bears a large sign
with the single word “Infantorium” across the front. The rates for keeping
children were $6 and $8 a week. Mrs. Geisen-Volk’s rental is $225 a month and
she has a four-year lease. She formerly conducted an infantorium at 1056 Park
Avenue.

The Bureau of Vital Statistics records show that seventeen
infants died at the “farm” last year, and four others between January 1 and February
15, 1925. Assistant District Attorney Charles White, attached to the Harlem
Court, has been conducting an independent investigation for two months as a
result of a complaint made by a nurse, who has been in Philadelphia since
severing her connection with the place, but is in town now and has been subpoenaed to appear for questioning this morning at the District Attorney’s
office. Physicians who have attended some of the babies also will be
questioned.

Isadore Neustaedter, of 26 Broadway, attorney for Mrs.
Geisen-Volk, said that there was absolutely for Mrs. Geisen-Volk, said that
there was absolutely no foundation for the charges against his client. He knew
her well, he said, and she had conducted her establishment in the very best
way. He insisted that the child Angerer was his own.

Mrs. Geisen-Volk’s pastor, theRev. George F. Schmidt, of
Emanuel Lutheran Church, Eighty-eighth Street and Lexington Avenue, also spoke
spoke on her behalf. He officiated at her marriage five years ago, he said, and
declared that her husband had been brutal to her and they had separated. She
did not get a divorce from him because she does not believe in divorce.

[“22nd Baby Dies As Mothers Storm ‘Farm’ – 500 Women Mill
Around East 86th Street House as Infant’s Death Is Laid to Malnutrition – Owner
Faints at Cry of ‘Murder!’ – Substitution Charges Increase; May Exhume Bodies
of Children,” The New York Herald New York Tribune (N.Y.), Late City Edition,
May 9, 1925, p. 1]

***

FULL TEXT: No more shocking case of its kind has come to the
attention of the New York authorities than that of Mrs. Helene Geisen-Volk, the
former German war nurse who dealt in babies.

According to the evidence, some fifty-three children
committed to her care died of one cause or another, usually of starvation.
Conditions at her infantorium – described as a baby farm – described as a “baby
disposal plant” – were called miserable and filthy in the extreme. A probation
officer reported after an examination of her career that she had “strangled or
frozen to death or otherwise disposed of babies left in her custody in order
that she might reap a profit through her acts.”

The woman came into notice after she had substituted a baby
for another whose fate never was discovered. After the body of another child
had been exhumed she was indicted for manslaughter.

“The reason why the defendant killed is understood when
advertence is made to the fact that it was to be the pecuniary advantage of
this cruel proprietor of this baby farm to destroy illegitimate children for a
consideration and non-paying babies because they were liabilities.

“Beneath her proud exterior and veneer of humanity the woman
conceals the callous fiendishness so common to her prototype, the undesirable
midwife. She has no maternal affections, at least with respect to babies of
other people. To her they are like puppies. To they are articles of merchandise
to be bartered, sold or exchanged. The defendant represents a revolting anomaly
in humanity.”

The above is taken from a report on Mrs. Helene Augusta
Geisen-Volk, former German war nurse and keeper of a baby farm at 236 East 86th
street, Manhattan. The report was made public on the day she was sentenced to
serve three and a half to seven years. She had pleaded guilty to substituting a
strange child for another child whose fate was never discovered.

An indictment for manslaughter, in connection with one of
the fifty-three deaths of babies committed to her care, never was prosecuted
against this woman.

Will it ever be?

Mrs. Geisen-Volk, a sharp-featured woman of 41, came into
public notice early in May, 1925, when she was held in heavy bail as a result
of numerous complaints against her and her and her institution in 86th street.

As the story unfolded in subsequent days, she appeared more
and more the fiend incarnate, comparable even to the notorious “Madame Killer”
[Ann Lohman, AKA “Madame Restell,” abortionist], who flourished in New York
many years ago. Her infantorium was described as a baby disposal plant.” The
records, as they came to light, showed that dozens of children had died of one
cause or another either in the nursery or later in hospitals. Conditions at
her place were pictured as the last word in misery and filth.

Most of the children died, according to the evidence, of starvation.

Mrs. Geisen-Volk was brought into court on the complaint of
William Angerer, a steamfitter’s helper, who had placed his four-months-old
son, Stephen, in the woman’s care the previous February 1, after his wife had
suffered a nervous breakdown, and who never saw his child again.

Angerer paid $10 a week to Mrs. Geisen-Volk. On February 28,
when he called, the woman told him the child had heart trouble and had been
sent to Saratoga, N. Y., for treatment. A few days later, when he telephoned,
Mrs. Geisen-Volk told him the child had been taken to Chicago for further
treatment. He became suspicious. Finally she wrote him a letter saying little
Stephen was again at her place.

The father called and Mrs. Geisen-Volk handed him over an
infant which Angerer immediately knew was not his son.

“You are mistaken,” she stated positively. “I am sure this
is your son.”

But Angerer knew he was not mistaken, and to prove it he
brought the child to his family physician. Dr. Elmer Smith who had been present
at the birth. Dr. Smith agreed with him.

~ Incomprehensible Records. ~

Furthermore, the Angerer child had had two teeth this baby
had none.

Where, then, was his child? And who child was this the woman
had given him?

The woman’s records at her nursery were found to be for the
most part incomprehensible. In the case of the Angerer child no mention was
made in the records of the child having heart trouble, and there was no mention
was made in the records of the child having heart trouble, and there was no
mention of the baby having been sent to Saratoga and Chicago.Mrs. Geisen-Volk still insisted the Angerer
child had been returned to its father.

On the after she was ordered held the woman was taken to the
infantorium to identify the babies still there. As she entered, crowds gathered
in front of the place – just as they did in front of the infamous Madame
Restell’s place on a memorable occasion some sixty years ago. Inside, while
Mrs. Geisen-Volk sat at a table thumbing their vague records, one mother,
screaming that she would kill her, made a rush at her, but was held back.

Mrs. Geisen-Volk asserted that it was all spite work. Her
pastor, the Rev. George F. Schmidt, stoutly supported her, saying that all her
troubles could be traced to enemies. He said he had officiated at the second
marriage – her first husband was said to have been a Prussian army officer –
five years before and knew her to be a good woman. He characterized the whole
affair as an “outrage.”

The second husband, incidentally, had left Mrs. Geisen-Volk
some three years after their marriage. Whatever happened to the first husband
never became known.

The investigation moved on. And the babies continued to die.
Cause – acute malnutrition, more commonly known as starvation. One died in the
Metropolitan hospital May 8, and another died on May 9 at Bellevue. In
Jefferson Market jail Mrs. Geisen-Volk clasped a Bible and tried to look
sanctimonious.

On May 9 Mrs. Geisen-Volk and her counsel appeared in court
to hear Magistrate Albert Vitale plead from the bench for the complete truth
about the Angerer child. Mrs. Angerer had been sent to Central Islip hospital
for the insane. Angerer’s counsel stated that if the mother knew her child was
all right perhaps it might bring about her recovery.

~ For Sake of Humanity. ~

“For the sake of humanity,” said the court to the
Geisen-Volk lawyer, “if this child is dead or alive, let the parents know. This
mother is coming home tomorrow and if, for any reason, the child died she
should know it. This is not strictly according to the law, but there are times
when it is wise to disregard the law and use our common sense.”

The lawyer’s only reply was that what he had been told in
confidence by his client he was not at liberty to disclose in court.

Mrs. Geisen-Volk therefore retained her secret.

Later that day the district attorney’s office unearthed an
indictment charging first degree manslaughter against a “Helen Geiser” of 1066
Park avenue, in connection with an illegal operation performed upon a woman who
later died in the Woman’s hospital November 6, 1917. Mrs. Geisen-Volk had
formerly conducted an infantorium at 1066 Park avenue. The case had been
dropped.

Another revelation from the district attorney’s office was a
charge of kidnaping against this same woman in 1922 – a charge which also came
to nothing. A young woman had taken her child to Mrs. Geisen-Volk’s place and
paid $10 a week. Later she called and the woman pushed her out of the place,
saving she could not have her child. The infant, she said, had been sent to
Canada.

According to his complaint, her lawyer had talked
confidentially with Mrs. Geisen-Volk and then announced that he had lost all
the papers in the case. The authorities therefore had dismissed the charge “for
lack of evidence.”

With testimony pouring in from various witnesses to the
effect that one child at the nursery had died of other than natural causes, the
investigators decided to exhume several of the bodies to see if these little
graves might contain evidence of actual willful homicide.

The witness’ stories were shocking in the extreme. We will
outline some of them briefly.

First, there is the story of Mrs. Margaret Buker, of
Philadelphia.

Mrs. Geisen-Volk had identified a child at the infantorium
as Robert Burton. Mrs. Bukers, grandmother of Robert Burton, had examined the
child, which had been removed to Bellevue hospital, and stated positively that
this was not her grandson. Then she related her experience with Mrs.
Geisen-Volk.

She said that little Robert, born the previous August, had
been taken to the infantorium in December. The child’s mother, Mrs. Mary
Burton, died in January. Then during the following month the baby became ill.
The cause appeared to be malnutrition. Mrs. Bukers attempted to see the child,
but was prevented by Mrs. Geisen-Volk. The grandmother was informed that the
child was under the care of a heart specialist.

Mrs. Bukers continued to pay $10 a week to Mrs. Geisen-Volk.
Weeks later the authorities learned that little Robert had died at the Lenox
Hill hospital on March 11.

Next, there was the statement of Mrs. Annette Soudieres.

Mrs. Soudieres said that years before Mrs. Geisen-Volk,
under the name Miss Auguste Geisen, had worked in a home conducted by W. John
Murray at Croton, N. Y., Mrs. Soudieres, mother of two children, had been
employed as a nurse there. She said she had been threatened with reprisals
against her own children if she ever revealed things she had seen there.

“The night before one of the children died there, I was in
an adjoining room to that in which Miss Geisen and the child were,” she told
Vincent Pisarra, superintendent of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children. “I heard a choking sound and tried to get out of my room, but was
unable to do so. The door was locked.

“I looked through a crack in the door and saw Miss Geisen
feeding the baby with a nursing bottle. She was forcing the bottle into the
child’s mouth. This caused the choking I heard. Then I saw her remove the
nipple from the bottle and again force the bottle into the child’s mouth.

“After a time the sounds ceased, and Miss Geisen left the
room. The next morning they told me that the child had died.”

~ Another Witness. ~

Assistant District Attorney William P. Ryan announced that
another witness, whose name he would not divulge, had told him of an
advertisement Mrs. Geisen-Volk had prepared, stating, “Wanted for adoption;
blond, blue-eyed baby boy; must have two teeth.” This was on May 2, when
William Angerer was insisting that the woman return the child to him.

The district attorney’s office also stated that a
young
woman named Mary Shimkus, 18 had identified the child given to William
Angerer as her child, Raymong Lagrino, born out of wedlock.

Mrs. Francis Hirsch, a nurse who lived at the infantorium
for ten weeks, testified that there were nine deaths in the place while she was
there. She said Mrs. Geisen-Volk had admitted many substitutions to her. She
told of a baby boy and a baby girl, twins, who had died in Bellevue soon after
they were consigned to Mrs. Geisen-Volk’s care.

The baby farmer was distressed by the deaths of the twins,
according to Mrs. Hirsch, because the parents were “good payers” and she hated
to loose the money.” She therefore substituted a deserted child for the dead
girl twin, and informed the mother that while the baby boy died, the girl was
out on Long Island being treated.

Eventually, the mother discovered the deception, after she
had paid some weeks’ rent. When the child died it was buried in potters’ field,
for the mother refused to accept the body.

Another witness, William Gardner, said he knew of between
twenty-five and thirty deaths at Mrs. Geisen-Volk two places, the one on Park
Avenue and this other one on 86th street. He said the baby farmer often
advertised for babies for adoption, to take the places of babies who had died
or had been sold.

On May 18, while Chief Assistant District Attorney Ferdinand
Pecora was preparing to submit his assembled evidence to the grand jury, Mrs.
Florentine Vasahlo, a nurse, came to his office with her lawyer and admitted
that she had signed a fake birth certificate at Mrs. Geisen-Volk’s solicitation
so that a girl baby could be sold to a couple anxious to adopt a child.

Mrs. Vosahlo’s story led to startling revelation by a Mrs.
Nat Bass, wife of a well-to-do clothing manufacturer.

Mrs. Bass state that she had purchased a baby from Mrs.
Geisen-Volk for $75, and that a fake birth certificate had been made out, so
that she might deceive her husband inbto believing that she had given birth to
a baby. She had carried on the deception for eight months, but as the
Geisen-Volk investigation was getting closer and closer to her plot, she had
finally confessed to her husband.

Beass refused to keep the child. It was sent to Bellevue.

By now several bodies had been exhumed, and in the case of
one of them, William Winters, the authorities decided that they had evidence of
homicide.

Mrs. Geisen-Volk had given the cause of death as heart
failure. The autopsy revealed that the child’s skull had been fractured.
According to Dr. Otto H. Schultze, the occiptial bone had been featured clear
through a few hours before death. The child had died February 3 and the body
had been exhumed on information furnished by the mother.

Late in May she was indicted for substitution and for
manslaughter. She pleaded not guilty to the latter charge. Her appearances in
court were invariably marked by scenes of distress. The accused woman gave the
appearance of being terribly maligned.

~ Cooley’s Report. ~

On July 15 she pleaded guilty to the charge of substitution.
Her lawyer, Newman Levy, informed the court that the woman had been the “victim
of sensationalism.” The defense promised to tell the whole truth about the
Angerer baby at the next arraignment.

A week later Mrs. Geisen-Volk was sentenced.

Edwin J. Cooley, a probation officer, had investigated the
woman’s career and submitted a report, part of which we have quoted. The report
stated that since February, 1918, at least fifty-three infants intrusted to her
care had died. She was called “cruel and bestial.”

The report stated that she had “strangled or frozen to death
or otherwise disposed of babies left in her custody in order that she might
reap a profit through her acts.”

After reading the report, the late Judge John F. McIntyre
called her to the witness stand.

“What did you do with the Angerer child?” he asked.

“I died, and I left it in a hallway in a satchel,” she
replied.

“Why did you do that?”

She said one of the relatives of the baby had asked her to
do it.

“I think you are lying,” said the court. “This report
indicates that you are a fiend incarnate. I see no extenuating circumstances
whatsoever.”

Ordered from the stand, Mrs. Geisen-Volk screamed and had to
be carried out for a while.When she
came back, clutching her Bible, Judge McIntyre gave her the maximum sentence.

He sentenced her serve three and one-half to seven years in
Auburn prison.

So Mrs. Geisen-Volk went to Auburn, the authorities deciding
that it would be a difficult matter to convicther of manslaughter in connection with the death of the Winters child,
or in connection with any of the other shocking cases of her baby farm.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 3): A colored Lucretia Borgia, named
Virginia Doyle, was arraigned at the Police Court in Detroit, on Friday [Mar.
4], upon a charge of attempting to poison Mrs. Catharine De Baptiste, the
mother of the prisoner’s first husband. Mrs. De Baptiste has been for some time
past at the house of Mrs. Doyle, No. 274 Beaublen street, and it is alleged
that poison has been introduced in small quantities into her food and medicine
of late. The defendant is at present living with her third husband, and George
Taliafero, a son by her second husband, was led to suspect his mother by
drinking some beef tea that had been prepared for Mrs. De Baptiste. It made him
quite sick, and he determined to keep a close watch. A bottle of medicine was
procured from a druggist and a piece of apple substituted for the cork. A small
splinter of wood was thrust into the apple as if to prevent it from falling
into the bottle; but this splinter was placed directly over a mark upon the
neck of the bottle, it is alleged that Taliafero then went, out of the room for
a few moments, leaving his mother there with the sick woman. When he returned
he found that the stopper of the bottle had been no turned that the stick was
not above the mark, and a piece of the apple was lying on the table. It is
alleged by parties who are acquainted with Mrs. Doyle that De Baptiste and
Taliafero both died very suddenly, and, that just before the death of the
latter, he complained of a burning sensation in the stomach.the death of the
latter, he complained of a burning sensation in the stomach.

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): Detroit Tree Press, July 31. –
Virginia Doyle, the woman who was convicted some time since of mixing arsenic
with port wine and attempting to poison her mother, Mrs. Catherine De Baptiste,
was brought down from jail yesterday morning for sentence. Her case was taken
to the Supreme Court on a bill of exceptions to the rulings of Recorder Swift,
but the higher court sustained the positions of the court below, and remanded
the prisoner back for judgment she has been in very feeble health since her
conviction, and appears to be utterly broken down in mind and body. Two
policemen carried her into court, and during the proceedings, before her case
was reached, she sat veiled and trembling with nervous excitement, as though in
expectancy of her impending doom. When asked if she had any thing to say why
sentence should not be paused upon her, he replied that she was as innocent as
an angel of the crime of which she stood convicted. The Court expressed a full
belief in her guilt, and twelve impartial men, who were swain to do her
justice, had, after careful and patient deliberalion, reached the same
conclusion. His Honor also alluded to the magnitude of her course, her fiendish
and inhuman attempt to destroy the mother who gave her being, and declared that
ordinarily he should consider it a case where the full punishment should be
inflicted.

The law had placed the offense in the same category with
murder in his second degree, and prescribed a life sentence if the court should
see fit to inflict so severe a penalty. But inasmuch as she was in extremely
poor health, and had the jury’s recommendation to mercy, be should act with
comparative leniency. The sentence was that she should be confined in the
Detroit House of Correction, there to be kept and employed for the period of
twenty years. Immediately after receiving her sentence she was borne out of the
court-room, placed in a carriage and conveyed to the House of Correction,
unaccompanied by any one except the officer in charge.

[“A Woman Sentenced to Twenty Years Imprisonment for
Murdering Her Mother.”

The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer (Oh.), Jun. 23, 1870, p. 5]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 3): At about eight o’clock on Tuesday
[Mar. 1] evening Officer Cook made the arrest, near Mochanie, who is charged by
her own son with administering poison to her mother. The facts in the case, as
learned from Mr. J. E. D. Ellis, a young man residing in the family of the
intended victim, and himself still suffering from a dose of the poison, are as
follows: The woman Doyle takes her name from a husband who died about fifteen
months ago. She was first married about sixteen years ago. She was first
married about sixteen years ago, having a son by the marriage. While the son
was yet a babe, the husband died, and the manner of his death elicited a good
deal of surprise, he going off very suddenly and suffering great pain. The
woman married again about five years ago, and something like a year ago, the
husband died. He was astrong, hearty
man, and was first taken with burning pains in the stomach, having several
attacks previous to the one in which he died. He suspected that his wife had
given them something, and just before dying, charged this Ellis to have a post
mortem examination made, and if poison was found to proceed against the wife.
Ellis did not carry out the request, although the matter got to the knowledge of
detectives, who had the woman arrested, but the case lingered along for a while
and was at last dropped. On securing her freedom the woman went immediately
home and hired a young lad to crawl under her house and bring out a small
package, seeming to contain a powder, which she burned in the stove.

At the time of this husband’s death there was a boarder in
the house, who contained there until some three weeks since, claiming to be the
husband of Mrs. Doyle. He then informed her that he must start for New York. He
was a mechanic, working around the city by the day or a job. He stated that he
should be gone but ten days, and requested her, during his absence, to go to
her mother’s – Mrs. Catherine De Baptiste – and stay. The house being full, the
mother objected to the arrangement, as also did Mrs. Doyle’s son, who lives
with his grandmother, as the family did not believe her married to her last
man. However, she persisted in remaining, and that evening declared that she
would get supper. She got some meal and made a pudding, and, just before the
family sat down to the table, she was seen to take the pudding into the kitchen
and divide it up in portions, putting her mother’s share into a saucer, which
she was careful to have get when they all sat down. Not feeling well, the old
lady only ate a few mouthfuls, but it was only a few moments before she
declared that she felt “awful strange,” and soon had acute pains and burnings
in her stomach. Ellis became alarmed at her condition, not suspecting the true
cause, and called in Dr. Kane, who administered medicine that caused the
patient to vomit thoroughly, and the next morning she felt almost well. One day
passed by, and then the old lady had another attack, soon after eating a baked
apple that the daughter encouraged her to partake of. This time Ellis and the
son administered medicinesthemselves, and again the victim threw up the dose.

The two young men then had a conversation, and both declared
to Mrs. De Baptiste their belief that her daughter was trying to poison her.
While partially acquiescing in this belief, the patient bid them keep secret
and watch for some proofs of guilt. That night Ellis made some beef tea for the
old lady, having that day put all the food to be given her under lock and key.
He marked the cork of the bottle containing the beef, so that he could tell if
it had been disturbed, and then purposely went out to see if Mrs. Doyle would
meddle with it. Coming back, he found that she had had the cork out, and both
the young men charged her with the act, also plainly telling her their
suspicions in regard to her conduct. She denied everything, but not that fervor
which would come from an innocent person. That night Ellis bought a pint of
wine, and Mrs. Doyle fixed a glass of it for the patient to taste of at
intervals during the night. Before going to bed young Doyle took a sip from the
glass and tasted of a bit of cheese, and suffered such pains on getting to bed
that he got up and took a large dose of castor oil, which at last had relieved
him, although yesterday (this was last Friday night) he was weak and
debilitated. The old lady did not touch the wine during the night, and the
young man noticed in the morning that there was a large sediment of white in
the bottom of the glass. He carried it down stairs and boldly charged his
mother with having poisoned the wine. She seized hold of him, spilling most of
the wine, and drank herself a portion of what was left, but kept it in her
mouth, and soon ran out doors and spit it out. No further proof was needed, and
the woman was hustled out of the house, and the tumbler taken to Professor
Jennings to have the contents analyzed. He did not complete his work until
yesterday afternoon, when he gave in his statement that the powder was arsenic,
and the son came down to the Central

Station and procured his mother’s arrest. This is the
statement obtained from Ellis, who has been in the family for fifteen years and
is like a grandchild to the old lady, only that one or two suspicious actions
and attempts on the part of Mrs. Doyle have been omitted. His statements show a
depravity of human nature that is horrible beyond anything developed here for
may years. The motive was to gain possession of property, beyond a doubt, and
the woman did not seem to care if she had poisoned the whole family, as she
stood by and saw her son when he sipped the deadly wine. In all, she must have
used two or three ounces of arsenic, as five grains were left in the tumbler
and went to the chemist. She gave too large doses to kill speedily, and three
times the doctor saved the old lady’s life by his attendance. The woman Doyle
was arraigned at the Police Court yesterday afternoon, plead not guilty, and
was remanded to jail for examination, her bail being fixed at three thousand
dollars, with two sureties. She took the matter very cooly, wearing a
countenance not at all anxious, and smilingly declaring her belief that she
would get some one to bail her. The Prosecuting Attorney will visit Mrs.
DeBaptiste to-day to take her deposition, and the old lady is in bed and still
suffering, and is anxious that her deposition shall be taken for fear that she
may grow worse or die.

It is now nearly three months since the man living with Mrs,
Doyle left for New York, or for some place else, and not a word has been heard
of him, and it is the opinion of Ellis and the son that he has abandoned the
woman, and that he has abandoned the woman, and that he was never her lawful
husband at any time.

[“A Startling Case. – A Woman Arrested for Attempting to
Poison Her Mother. – Sudden Death of Two Husbands, and Disappearance of a
Third.” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), Mar. 3, 1870, p. 1]

***

Excerpt: Virginia Doyle was a 20
year prisoner. I removed a cancer from her breast in May, 1877. She died from cancer
of the uterus.

[“Charities and Corrections in Michigan, 1878-1879. Extracts
From Governor’s Message Concerning State Institutions, with Official Reports
and Documents Compiled by the State Board of Charities and Commissions,
Lansing, W. S. George and Co, 1879, p. 30]

To learn more details about murderous child care providers in
history, including baby farmers, adoption agents and baby sitters, see the 2-part article “Death on the Baby Farm,” by Robert St. Estephe, A
Voice for Men, July 16, 2013